Research
parks are planned to function as a seedbed for the concentrated development of innovation- and
technology-oriented businesses in a region. They have diverse and different
models all over the world and are also called ¡®science parks¡¯, ¡®technopoles¡¯ or ¡®technology parks¡¯. In recent decades,
building research parks has become a crucial strategy in regional economic
development in many developed countries such as Japan,
Western Europe, and Australia
as well as in the United
States. For regions faced with the decline
of older manufacturing industries, research parks have been considered as
alternatives to replace them. In addition, for other regions whose economies
have been performing well, they work as long-term strategy for continuous
prosperity of the regions. This research and
development (R&D)-based economic development strategy, if successful,
leads not only to employment growth and new
business creation, but also to changes in the structures of occupation and
wage, political cultures, and spatial patterns of development.[1]

According
to International Association of Science Parks (IASP), research parks (or
science parks) are defined as ¡°an
organization managed by specialized professionals, whose main aim is to
increase the wealth of its community by promoting the culture of innovation and
the competitiveness of its associated businesses and knowledge-based
institutions. To enable these goals to be met, a ResearchPark
stimulates and manages the flow of knowledge and technology amongst
universities, R&D institutions, companies and markets; it facilitates the
creation and growth of innovation-based companies through incubation and
spin-off processes; and provides other value-added services, together with high
quality space and facilities¡±. [2]In addition, Luger and Goldstein (1991) define
Research parks as ¡°organizational entities that
sell or lease spatially contiguous land and/or buildings to businesses or other
organizations whose principal activities are basic or applied research and
development of new products or processes.¡± These definitions exclude
high-tech centers or corridors like Silicon Valley in California
and Route 128 in Massachusetts,
industrial parks, and office parks.[3]

This paper explores the followings: how have research parks
evolved? What are the interesting statistics
of research parks all over the world? Then, why have regions tried to develop
research parks as an economic development strategy? Finally, through case study
on two research parks, this paper examines what the factors of success and the
challenges of research parks are.

A Brief History and Statistics

After World War II, the idea of concentrating industries in
one location became really popular in the other developed countries as well as
in the U.S.
The first research park was created in Menlo
Park, California in
1948.[4]In the 50s and
early 60s, the most well-known research parks were established:StanfordIndustrial Park(1951) in the Silicon Valley
of northern California, ResearchTrianglePark (1959)
in North Carolina. The success of these two
parks and the economic booms in Northern California¡¯s Silicon Valley, in Boston¡¯s Route 128, and in
the Austin-San Antonio corridor in the 1970s and early 1980s led many officials
and politicians in regions to emulate their successes.
[5]Particularly, research parks have grown as a result of the
competition among universities. As a result, park managers and developers, in
1986, established the Association of University Research Parks (AURP) for the
promotion of new research parks.[6] Today, there are 195 research parks in the US:
their average employees are 3,399 and average capital investment is estimated
US$ 186,280,327. [7]

In Nov. 2002, IASP surveyed 94 among worldwide
400 research parks. The result of this survey indicates interesting and significant statistics. [8]

zA majority of the currently existing research parks
in the world were created during the eighties (30%) and the nineties (48%); 18% of them have beencommenced in the 21st
century, which confirms the parks are an
increasing phenomenon.

zResearch parks¡¯ area were ranged from small size (up to 200,000 m2) of 51%
through medium-small size (200,000 – 600,000 m2) of 21% tobig
size (+ 1,000,000 m2) of 20%.

z89% of
Research Parks all over the world had
plans to grow and expand.

z53% of research parks had less than 50 tenants, and 36% of them had a number of tenants between 50
and 200.

44% of the existing
Research Parks were located in
university-owned land or university campus, showing the strong link between ¡°parks¡±
and universities. Also, 28% of themwere
within 5 kilometers distance.

zIn addition, almost 70% of
the ¡°parks¡± shared services with their
universities and hosted university researchers
in their facilities. Also, half of them shared
scientific infrastructures with the universities.

Research parks have represented an attempt to
encourage regional economic development through the use of regional creativity
and innovation. However, this strategy has sometimes paid many dollars and has confronted
several problems such as high competitions and government funding cutbacks for research. As a result, the growth of
research park has slowed in the US
since the mid of 1990s. [10]Nevertheless, there are, generally,
three reasons why a region develops a research park as an economic development
strategy. [11]

First
of all, a region may seek to create new jobs in new industries to replace jobs
in declining industries. The decline would be the result of agricultural jobs
or manufacturing industries. Product-cycle and trade theory suggest that
as economies develop, they will have tendency to concentrate in sectors where
they have advantages relative to other regions.[12]
This inclination usually leads to
more advanced products made in more sophisticated ways.

The
second reason is that a region wants to involve itself in high-growth
industries such as computers, software, and biotechnology, which are believed
to enhance a region¡¯s economic level. As nations and regions develop,
they are likely to develop increasing discrepancies between one geographical area and another. In particular,
the newer industries are liable to develop in one core region, where they draw
on agglomeration economies. The regional goal of a research park is to
concentrate the high-growth industries in those regions that appear to be most
in need economically.

The
final reason that a region chooses this strategy is that it helps create
synergies between firms and industries. In this concept, synergy can be defined
as the formulation of new and valuable information through human interaction. Despite the funding problems which
research parks now confront, officials still emphasize synergies as a reason that
companies still consider research parks.

The Factors of Success and the Challenges
in Research Parks

Park
developers and politicians build the research park in the hopes of
job creation, income growth, greater income equality, expanded opportunities
for special groups within the labor force, and economic restructuring of the
region.[13]But, the
contribution of a research park to any of these aspects of economic development
is difficult to measure. Additionally, each
player related with its development
has his own deferent definition of
success.[14]

As a
result, there is no consensus of what factors determine the success of a
research park. Some park promoters refer to, as the evidence of success, the employment and payroll of park
businesses. However, many of the jobs located in a park may well have been
generated within the region even if the park had not been created.
Additionally, the costs as well as the benefits of a research park must be
observed to determine its ¡°success.¡± Costs include direct expenditures on land
acquisition and infrastructure development by government, tax reductions or
exemptions, and the opportunity cost of the land for research parks.[15]Nevertheless, I investigate their factors of success
and challenges through the following representative
two parks: the
ResearchTrianglePark,
the Stanford research parks.

The StanfordResearchPark

The
Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto, California, opened by Stanford University
in 1951, is the first university-related research park in the U.S., and it is
widely regarded as a pioneer of
research parks. [16]The
creation of the Park was in response to the demand for industrial land near
university resources, especially an emerging electronics industry tied closely
to the School of Engineering
at StanfordUniversity, and to the need to augment
university¡¯s endowment and to increase its income.[17] The park was built on 700 acres of land
donated by Leland Stanford in 1885 as part of his original endowment of 8,800
acres to create StanfordUniversity. As a result,
most park businesses located within one mile of campus; also, it is just
thirty-two miles south of San Francisco and
within commuting distance of San Jose and Silicon Valley. [18] Moreover, Stanford graduates and professors have founded
Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems, Cisco Systems, Yahoo! and other high-tech
companies; and currently, 150 companies in the Park employ approximately
23,000 workers in electronics, software, biotechnology and other high-tech
fields. [19]

The
economic importance of the park is larger than this employment figures show.
The park has contributed to a
positive business climate which has
served to attract to the region not only businesses, but wealthy and
well-educated individuals as well. According to a research, some of out-of-park
businesses¡¯ most important reasons for locating in the Palo Alto area were the preference of CEO,
business services, and trained labor; and the park has helped to form the
political culture of the region by introducing a group of powerful corporate
executives who have played an active role in civic and public affairs.[20] Also, the park
has played important role in encouraging to the region¡¯s well-earned reputation
for generating start-up companies. In addition, businesses in the park have
paid more into city government in taxes than they have cost in service
provision; moreover, the park has accomplished its original objectives that
generate revenue for the university, and that bring industry and university
researchers come together. Finally, the success of the park, both as a real
estate venture and as a means of economic development, is mainly due to the
ability of university officials to be flexible, and to fortuitous timing in the
park development, rather than to planning insight.[21] There was little competition by other leading
research universities for these innovative businesses because the park was
first established. However, the park has also encouraged to widening gaps
between income groups in the region. Currently, the increased incomes have
resulted in high costs of living; as a result, exorbitant housing costs have
forced many employed StanfordResearchPark
and Silicon Valley workers to leave the area. [22]

The ResearchTrianglePark

The
Research Triangle Park (RTP) is the largest university-related research park and is considered to be
one of the most successful research parks in the world. RTP is a public and
private, planned research park, created in 1959 by leaders from business,
academia and industry. RTP covers
7,000 acres in the middle of a triangle formed by the University
of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, DukeUniversity
in Durham, and North
CarolinaStateUniversity in Raleigh.
RTP now has approximately 1,100 acres for development of the future. It currently accommodates more than 100 research and
development facilities which employ over 38,500 workers. The combined annual
salaries in RTP amount to over $1.2 billion dollars. [23]

The
case of RTP serves not only as one
of the earliest and largest, and park-like planned concentrations of R&D
activities in the world, but as the model of one of the dramatic cases of
regional economic restructuring as well. In the mid-1950s, North Carolina¡¯s per capita income was the
second lowest of any state. There were little or no R&D activities in the
state except for that in the three research universities. [24]
In the meantime, the first idea for RTP stemmed from Howard Odum,
a UNC professor, who sought to assemble the resources of the three
universities. Later, under the leadership of Governor Luther Hodges, a
committee to investigate the possibility to utilize the strength of the
research universities was formed and RTP finally launched out. [25]

The
crucial factors of success for RTP are the strength of the combined three
research universities of the region, the timing of the park, and the vision and
cohesiveness, and strong support of business, state government, and university
leaders in understanding the need for a
park and in working for its success. In the early 1960s, also, there was much less competition among areas
competing for R&D facilities than there is now. However, even if the park
has a large-scale effect within the Triangle region itself, it is so far
evaluated to fail to stimulate economic development in other parts of the state
to the degree that it was intended. [26]

Conclusion

Research parks,
similar to other economic development strategies, have been employed by regions
with hopes of encouraging their economic activities. This economic development
strategy is a worldwide phenomenon in developed countries. Those countries or
regions adopt this strategy to seek new industries to replace declining
industries, to involve themselves in high-growth industries, or to create
synergies between companies and industries. On the other hand, it is difficult
to measure the success or failure of research parks because there is no
consensus of determinants of success. The success of StanfordResearchPark
is due to StanfordUniversity¡¯s flexible
policies, the region¡¯s entrepreneurial tradition, and close ties between
university and neighboring businesses. Also, Research Triangle Park
(RTP) could succeed because of the
synergy of the combined three
research universities, the development timing
of the park, and the vision and strong support of business, state government,
and university leaders.

However, even these two successful parks have
confronted several problems such as high costs of living following increased
incomes in Stanford, and the failure to encourage economic development in
neighboring area in RTP. While a research park as economic development strategy
has numerous and attractive strengths, we should be cautious in newly adopting
this into a region. This is because there are already keen competitions among
regions or parks so that many parks are still in their infancy and have
enormous empty spaces to fill, and because few regions have Stanford¡¯s excellence
in high-tech fields and RTP¡¯s strengths based on
prior occupation.